I can assure you that I'm not interested in trolling. It's interesting that you selected the figurative or metaphorical imagery of jogging because some people are crippled in the real world and not everyone is capable of the same cognitive feats. I wish I knew what mental gymnastics lead you to conclude that I was seeking a free philosophy teacher because I doubt that you have anything to teach me. — Average

What makes you doubt that? You are basically asking questions all the time, so you seek answers, no? I guess you are thinking of yourself as some sort of modern day Socrates, but dream on. You are basically just being lazy. I can see that in the wording of your post. The argument you presented in unsound. You might still need a philosophy teacher even though you doubt that I have anything to teach you. The 'because' you use does not lead to a valid inference. You are not being average, you performing below par.

What exactly is meant by "it's own opposition"? How can a definition oppose itself? It's all very alien to me. I wish you would provide an example or some description of a purely hypothetical scenario in which this occurs. — Average

I am sorry but I wish you would do the mental jogging yourself. I am not a free philosophy teacher. Read up on it and try to understand what I write if you feel like it of course. I think you are just trolling actually.

What is a "Contradiction"? In other words what is it's nature or essence? When does a "Contradiction" occur? — Average

Well, it is Hegel's idea that every definition runs into problems as it engenders its own opposition when taken to the extreme, so any definition will immediately incur an objection. Quite Wittgensteinian come to think of it... :gasp: So I cannot give a definition, best i to show how it works. The beginning of the Science of Logic by Hegel gives an apt account. When we consider the concept of 'being' (Sein) and claim for instance that that is the object of first philosophy, and we try to define it, than it shows that in fact the concept is empty. It is as empty as its conceptual opposite, nothing (Nichts). So thinking in terms of being is immediately faced with nothing, because conceptually they are the same thing and not the same thing. We need the concept of 'becoming' to resolve this contradiction (or maybe 'antonomy' is a better word). Now becoming, if considered in the extreme also engenders its opposite because if there is only 'becoming' there is not really anything that 'becomes', to consider becoming you need some sense of a fixed point right, something that becomes something else. We find the concept of 'something' and so on and so on, three volumes of the Logik long...

I've studied a lot of his work and see that nowhere. Please cite something by Hegel. — Jackson

Well I found the section Proof quoted quite convincing. Funny thing is I thought about just that section when I read the discussion, though I would have no idea anymore where to find it I am grateful to 180 for locating it.

If you read what I wrote you also see that I do not think Hegel holds the world to be ideal in any Berkeleyan sense. So maybe what you refer to as realism and I as idealism are not far off. I find this quibbling over words quite uninteresting. In the section quoted I think Hegel states so too. He finds the question whether he is an idealist rather trite it seems to me. If you follow his train of thought in that section he says that every possible philosophy is idealist in the sense that it concerns our idea of the world, whether we have an idea of the world as material or as ideal. I think it makes eminent sense and is by no means a very far fetched claim so I wonder why you would find it so discomforting.
My Hegel interpretation by the way is formed by Wather Jaeschke, a German scholar and Robert Pippin's book... Hegel's Idealism ;)

edit:

"86. Inasmuch as the new true object issues from it, this dialectical movement which consciousness exercises on itself and which
affects both its knowledge and its object, is precisely what is
called experience [Eifahrung]. " — Jackson

Actually I think you just cited something rather idealist. There is only experience, but experience results from the dialectical movement of consciousness. It is not the experience with the world, i.e. the real impinging on our idea of it, that causes an experience, experience happens when the mind shifts and starts considering things differently. Of course that shift is caused perhaps by sense data about the world, but experience only happens when it is mentally processed. That is what I mean when I said in my first post that Hegel seems to prioritize the mental. (It is dialectical so again, I think such prioiritzations are not what it is about, but even so, from the very section you cited you may argue that Hegel prioritzes the mental over the material).

We are done. — Jackson

Proof is right I think Jackson, ultimately Hegel holds that what we can consider as 'world' is ideal. You are right in a way too though (in true dialectical form :wink: ) because of the caricature that is often made of idealism, as if it would mean that things are somehow unreal. That is not what it means in Hegel's quote above though.. What it means is that our metaphysical beliefs, the core of what we hold to be our world, is inescapably a thought construction, dependent on the concepts we have of it, the manifold of relationships to which we stand towards it. If there is anything real, he says, anything that is infinite, it is that we perceive the world in a mediated way, mediated by the elaborate theories, constructions, normative determinations, we have of it. So philosophy has to be idealist because it examines the concepts by which we think of the world, not the world as it is in its materiality, that will be the domain of physics or other sciences.

What he does here is play Kant, but making Kan historical, showing that the mediating concepts do not come out of nowhere but are historically constructed. The process of its construction can be discerned, that is the dialectic. So Hegel is an idealist, just not one taken in the everyday hack interpretation of idealism, as if the world is not real. That is something entirely different.

The Pheno serves as a pre-study to the logic. what appears in the Phenomenology? Spirit. What is spirit, I think it is rationality perceiving (or experiencing) itself. What it perceives is the way it relates to the world, namely in a dialectical fashion. When we know that, we can begin to examine the concepts proper. That is done in the 'Logik'. In the Pheno he shows that we cannot make sense of experience other than dialectically. That is a necessary beginning for metaphysics which is the object in the Logik.

At least that is how I conceive of it.

In this conception, Hegel as the progenitor of the mediating concept, grasped in its historicity, makes him a forerunner of social constructivism, discourse theory and those branches of thought that feel that instead of the real, we need to study they way it comes to be perceived as real.

Marx wrongly thought Hegel was an idealist, but nonetheless used his concept of necessary contradictions in history. Thus, capitalism had contradictions that would lead to socialism. — Jackson

I’m interested in learning more about this subject and the different interpretations people have of it. Is it pure sophistry or does it contain some truth? I understand that this is probably a controversial subject. I’m not really an expert when it comes to materialist dialectics so I won’t try to offer a defense of any political doctrine or function as some sort of apologist for different historical figures. — Average

Hegel was an idealist in the sense that Hegel's though essentially deals with the conceptual and the conceptual apparatus we have of the world essentially determines what happens to it. It is complicated though because in the Phenomenology of Spirit, the idea moves because of the subject an his worldly praxis. However Hegel is at least widely perceived to put the ideational before the practical. Anyway, He does give a lot of credit to our theoretical determination of the world.

The idea moves in a certain way, it moves dialectically, meaning that a certain theory or worldview runs into contradictions and will engender opposition, leading to a new theory which manages to make sense of this earlier contradiction.

Marx puts Hegel on his head or radicalizes Hegel, depending one the way you look at it. In any case Marx is adamant in saying that economic relations of power determine our worldview. He does keep the dialectical movement though in the sense that he thinks economic power relations tend to engender opposition as well, just like Hegel assumed with ideas and theory. A certain distribution will be 'negated', by this opposition who will fight for a different division of economic power. whereas in Hegel the clash is ideal, one concept being contested by another, in Marx it is practical, so, revolutionary.

It is therefore incorrect to say dia-mat is a political doctrine, it is more of a view of the world. It is a theory, actually, a certain model of the way the world could work.

As a physicist, I can say something about it. — Hillary

I am sure you can actually, in the whole post you did :smile: The funny thing is I have no idea whether it is correct or even what you are saying. That is by no means a fault of yours, just that understanding the whole language of physics requires a proper initiation and study. It is like that with many subjects of course, including philosophy actually, although it might be less specialized than theoretical physics. Like jgill I thank you too for the summary, I can just not make any constructive comments as I still do not know what it is about. I do thank you for taking your time and comments on the paper. @jgill maybe I misunderstood, I thought you gave him as an example of someone providing a really spectacular new theory out of nowhere.

Really? Come on why not? Free will is a topic that interests me also a lot and some science data about that debate I found them extremely interesting (especially neurologist data). Enlightening? Hmm.. Maybe not much indeed. But some things science says about it are really interesting and fascinating. — dimosthenis9

I am not saying they are not interesting or fascinating, or enlightening. I did not find what I was looking, but maybe we were looking for different things :) I by no means would wish to discredit neurology or anything.

Well his style didn't seem insulting here. At least to me. But since you mention the "independent thinker" I guess you are talking about his other thread also, which as to be honest didn't follow it as to see the way he expressed there.
He seems like a honest debater, who seeks answers. But as I mentioned didn't read his other thread as to have a general opinion. — dimosthenis9

Well yeah, maybe I am biased by the other thread. If he is an honest debater he will take it to heart, present his thesis better and with less bravado than in the other thread. Everyone who is an honest debater will get an honest response... :)

Well I don't like to pretend like Robin Hood of TPF who defend others but I guess he reminded me of myself when I first arrived here.
I was also really surprised how offending some members were and how insulting also. Couldn't use any arguments at all but only clever-ish lines and insults. And I remember thinking "wtf?! If I wanted these kind of shit I would have make a fb or twitter account!". — dimosthenis9

Yeah, and that is why I liked you standing up for him. We all need defenders, this time I am playing the role of the role of the prosecutor but I value a good defense. You did stay on though... what made you stay even if you felt you were being treated harshly or unfairly?

I have read other posts of you in various threads and your opinions are really interesting. Neither you seem like the person who would play the "wise teacher" role who has all the answers(like some other members do). So I was kind of surprised that you came so harsh on him. But well I don't know, if he did used that "me, me, me" tone in the other thread, it is annoying indeed. — dimosthenis9

The 'me me me' was an inference of mine and maybe unfair, that is possible, though I am not sure yet. I do think that a bit of tough love cannot harm. In Dutch we have a figure of speech, he who hits the ball should expect it to come back. I do not have anything personal against Skalidris. I do not have all the answers... I usually do pounce upon the people that claim they do... Eventually Skalidris will go back, reformulate, rework and resubmit and he will become stronger. I am against using velvet gloves, but you and he should rest assured this is nothing personal. A truly wise person sees the wisdom in the ideas of others, only then might he supersede them.

Here is An Example on this very forum. — jgill

I am curious how did things turn out with him? I googled him and could not find much. I found a site in which he was quoted and it was said that he attracted praise from a noteworthy prof. It also said that the article was retracted... Also some connection to a company called bioresolve...

I could not make much out of it exactly, but I am genuinely curious. It would not surprise me though if he was a really great (or good) mind. That has to do with his style on the forum. He provides an abstract and adds that it has been rewritten after some discussions with people on this forum, giving credit where it is due. He asks for feedback and discussion, which is good form. Compare that with some others here who just say: "everyone should work as they do in physics!" or: "I am a genius, I really really am! And Newton? Pha! no genius at all!". When I read such phrases I know I am not dealing with someone who is 'compos mentis'. About the content of Alexandre's article I cannot say anything as the mathematics and physics are over my head.

I think his general point is that philosophy should have as a general starting point science facts.
Of course science doesn't have all the answers for everything. But we should have huge respect to it . And it is the best "method" we have as humans to verify these "answers". — dimosthenis9

I like your post Demosthenis and that you stand up for Skalidris. I think on the face of it there would be a lot of disagreement between us, on the forum. However, in principle we agree on many things. I would not say "philosophy should have as its starting point scientific facts" as some of the philosophical questions on what criteria could something count as a fact, how are facts isolated from other facts, what does it mean for something to be a fact etc. I come from a continental tradition and you seem much ore analytical to me, though I could be wrong of course. The only thing on which I read both science and philosophy is the debate on free will. I did not find the scientific stuff very interesting or enlightening, but do love P.F. Strawson's article, even though I disagree with him on some accounts. (I do read a lot of social science though, but in this thread science seems equivocated with natural science).

However on many of the basic premises we would agree. Of course a philosopher should take science into account. There is no better way to explain the workings of the world than those discovered by science. For instance take 'behavioural economics'. If we would like to ask whether it is right to nudge people, an ethical question, we need to know how nudging works. We need to know the behaviorist model underlying it. So in our basic premises, should we rely on science to tell us how the world works, yes absolutely. Should we have great respect for it, a resounding yes!

The reason I am harsh on Skalidris is that his point is rather trivial, in your translation I tend to agree with it as well to a large extent, but the style in which it is presented is insulting. 'All these philo profs have gotten it all wrong, they are not wise, instead we should be 'independent thinker' (essentially like me! me! me!). Indeed, you just arrived here so blow a little less hard! I feel it is an insult to people who have learned a great deal more than he did. This is just my explanation for my own behaviour, that said I really do appreciate you defending him.

Again, can you please read my OP? I said science based: chemistry, biology and physics. — Skalidris

No you said scientific based concepts and you provided those three as an example. Little did I know you think there are only three sciences in the world.

I read your OP. You are asking everyone to read your OP and accusing them of not reading well. when your readers do not know what you are on about, probably the writing sucks.

You didn't understand what I meant, and I don't think you want to. — Skalidris

I do not think you yourself understand what you mean and I do not think you are able to.

Well that's what philosophy of science does, not everything in philosophy is about that. — Skalidris

No, philosophy of science philosophically investigates the concepts through which science works, it examines the methodology of science, it examines perhaps how scientific theories emerge, but it does not use scientific concepts to examine themselves.

Not many. Newton, Galilei, Einstein, Bohr, Bohm, Smolin, Strominger, etc. to name a few all worked quite independently and were trendsetters. — Hillary

Yes and what are the odds that we see Hillary up there? You know how many physicists there are in the world who dream of one day becoming Newton?

Besides the syntactically wrong sentence, your assessment is wrong. How do you know? Statistics? Don't make me laugh... — Hillary

I really do not need statistics for that assessment. Reading your posts is enough.

"Dear mother of gods..." And your reading comprehension, I gave an example and took it from there. This is not necessarily my opinion.

No, I want to create something else that is restricted to scientific theories as the basis of the reasoning, not the scientific method. Did everyone miss the part where I said I don't want to replace philosophy? That I'm only comparing the topics these two would have in common? — Skalidris

You want to create 'big pictures' based on scientific theory. Well go ahead study cultural sociology, or macro economics or big history. They are already there as branches of the sciences. You think philosophy comes up with 'big pictures', but only some philosophy like some science does so. And even those do not improve with the use of 'scientific theories'. Philosophy examines the building blocks of such theories for instance their conceptual aparatus and the paradigm in which they are articulated and how their claims to truth are assessed. Why would you want to use the object of enquiry to examine the object of enquiry? Seems very circular.

And let's say those philosophies that do offer big systems of thought, like Hegel's, The emergence of science is a moment in men's becoming self aware. That can never be refuted or proven by scientific theory, the picture is actually too big.

Look what I found on Quora. An excerpt:

If you mean someone who will come up with a revolutionary theory, I am not sure there will be one. The first requirement is NOT to work in a large group. Large groups need funding, and funding does not go to people playing in left field, and worse, large groups require group think.

A telltale...(is that the right expression?) — Hillary

How many people dream of coming up with a revolutionary theory you imagine? How many really do?
If I count the odds than my assessment is that you dream of coming up with one but will not do so. What indications do you have for thinking you will come up with a revolutionary theory? If you use Quora as a source I have even less high hopes.

It could be that the sixth realized the hallucination. I feel like the sixth. — Hillary

yes but how likely is it really that you are? That is what you have to wonder about. You might feel like A, but if you hear B all the time, you might be B, no?

That depends on the people involved. — Hillary

Seems odd....Some people are more prone to hallucination than others, sure, but the chance of having 5 prone is smaller than one prone.

I think you do understand this rather simple logic, but you do not want to. You do not want to because that would involve critical self reflection and you would have to face the possibility that you yourself might be hallucinating. You do not want to face that possibility just yet. You will though, in time.

Yes, it is possible, but so can some individual be hallucinating. What is more likely, 5 knowledgeable people hallucinating altogether or 1?

The point is, that these exactly could be wrong. — Hillary

They could be. But because they went through rigorous peer review the chance is lower than your average garden variety theory thought up by whoever.

so that the bases of the discipline are experiments, which, in my opinion, is a more objective window to the world than any other tools. The first consequence of this is that it would exclude a lot of topics that can’t be related to sciences with logic. For example, there is no concept in sciences which can help discuss the existence of God, so this matter would be ignored, and maybe left out for philosophy. It would question things like the human behaviour in a broader picture than psychology, the mind, life, the nature of ethics, space, infinity, logic, … — Skalidris

The interesting thing is that in the previous thread you argued for the independent thinker. However here, what you really seem to want is to limit philosophy to the scientific method, restricting the independency of philosophy. You want to do that because in your view the experimental method yields more'objective' insights. You implicitly value third person description higher. However, we might well lose some registers of thought when we embrace this approach. Thinking through such implications is a matter of philosophical enquiry. Such an implicit value judgment has also ethical implications because the scientific method is not neutral. When we elevate its findings to the level of truth beyond what experiments actually prove, but base our 'bigger picture' on it you reduce the world to that which can be experimentally understood in a laboratory setting. You also neglect the fact that such a jump requires a lot of interpretation but how that is done remains unclear.

Your plea for independence in fact comes down to a plea for reductionism and dependence, limiting rather than expanding our avenues of thought. It does not come as a surprise because such absolutist proposals when thought through tend to revert into their opposite. I recommend the dialectical philosophical method ;).

In summary you just said "I don't know how to respond but your opinion is wrong and I've got better things to do", thanks, very useful... We can feel the years of practice in the art of rhetoric here! — Skalidris

I have given you all I could give. Indeed I do not know how to respond to you. You have an opinion, an unwavering one, so what can I do?

You missed my whole point where I say I don't do philosophy, don't want to and never will, at least not as you define it, and not as it is defined in academia. — Skalidris

You indeed do not and will never do. You will be a philosopher of your own definition in the depth of your thoughts, speaking to yourself in your own private language.

There you go, I never tried to be good in philosophy. — Skalidris

Which you have made abundantly clear here.

Again, hey I don't want to follow the rules of philosophy, that's the whole point of the topic of the independent thinking. This whole questioning was about if we could come up with a better way to think about abstract topics.

You and Tobias seem to be so obsessed with philosophy and aren't able to see other possibilities that it starts to look like a religion. — Skalidris

And you have given us nothing.... You are talking about rules you do not want to follow, but do not tell us what they are except that silly philo profs follow them. You want to break a lance for independent thought, but you have given us no original argument whatsoever. You want a better way of thinking about abstract topics, but have given us no example of such a better way.

Now you accuse me and Jackson of being obsessed with philosophy and not seeing other possibilities, treating it like a religion, however where did I tell you what to do? I have taken your claims to task and gave you a chance to expand on your thoughts and display your alternative. You have only muttered something about that there should be experiments.

And before there was a community, there must have been one or several person having the same idea and then gather together. I never said the independent mind wouldn't try to find like-minded people to create a community. But if the whole method of the previous discipline is trash, yes, the independent mind alone beats the whole community in my opinion. — Skalidris

In your wonderful, unreasoned, unsubstantiated, detached from the world, entirely independently found opinion. Well, since it is unwavering I wonder why you asked in the first place. I will now go do some serious work and leave you with your opinion.

Okay good, then why not try to create an actual method? :p Why not try to produce actual knowledge? Why would we have a discipline in academia that's "slapdash"? — Skalidris

Because there will not be one method to rule them all. It depends on the questions asked. Indeed also methods are a result of communal thinking and not one guy on a philosophyforum. That philosophy does not have sharply delineated methods might be problematic or it may not be. There is discussion about it in the community of philosophers.

And I would add it needs to be based on experiments to some extend, if possible, but that's just my rational/scientific side speaking. — Skalidris

Ohh golly the man thinks we should do experiments. Well I better pack up and go then since I am a discourse analyst. Well Hillary now you see what happens when somebody who thinks he is a scientist does philosophy. It leads to unsubstantiated spouting of opinion...

Um what? I don't even know how to answer to that, you're basically saying the strongest minds are in the past and not in the future, how does that even make sense? Why couldn't there be someone with a stronger mind (whatever that means)? — Skalidris

No I am telling you they work in unison, probably in a network of equally strong minds, probably now attending a serious philosophy conference.

Because it's been shown many times in history. A scientific mind could challenge the logic of the whole ecclesiastic community. — Skalidris

They had the power of a whole scientific community behind them. The Ptolemaic cosmology was basically archaic.

This has nothing to do with the question at hand.

What... Okay try and say that to a philosopher that's been publishing in academia for a long time. There is literally a course about the philosophical method in the bachelor of philosophy... — Skalidris

Well, there are different philosophical methods, or better, standards on how to write a philosophy article as @Jackson pointed out. One can for instance employ discourse analysis, or phenomenology, or an analytic kind of logic chopping to a certain philosophical problem. I am not saying there is no methodology whatsoever, I am saying that there is not one methodology. Indeed methods wise, philosophy is rather slapdash compared to the sciences.

Okay then anyone who's thinking about a philosophical topic is a philosopher... Yeah don't think so. — Skalidris

No, you do it with a certain rigor an you place yourself within a certain philosophical debate. You elucidate your terms, you examine the presuppositions held in the debate and scrutinize them. None of that can be done when you are not well versed in the subject. I have never heard of 'the philosophic method' but that does not mean anything goes. Presenting a false dilemma... so unphilosophical.

Let us say someone has been reading Hume's Treatise on his own for a month. He presents his ideas to another philosopher and is told Hume rejects that interpretation on page 126. So a month wasted. — Jackson

Indeed!

Every philosophy is one's own. — Hillary

Huh? You are confusing 'a philosophy', a popular, but meaningless usage of the term, with 'philosophy', a certain discipline relating to questioning fundamental assumptions about the way the world is again.

There is no independent true philosophy hanging around somewhere with objective standards of what good philosophy is. — Hillary

No, there is not, but you are aware that this sentence is not related to the one just before it are you?

The fact that you're hopelessly confused that philosophy is about arguing makes this seriously clear. — Hillary

You sentence does not even make sense syntactically. Anyhow, no I do not think philosophy is about arguing. I do think that philosophers should present their ideas an open them up to criticism. Though you are by all means free not to and keep it as 'your philosophy'. Bandying it about on a phil forum is maybe not such a good idea... but hey, suit yourself.

That depends on the chemistry. If she points at the chemistry of patterns in spike potentials and the chemistry involve in firing motor neurons, their relation and the chemistry of motion and perception, added with the chemistry of emotions, memory trails, and the happenings in a mushroomed brain, she wins. — Hillary

Wins what? A philosophical argument? Not at all. This just shows you are pretty hopeless at philosophy.

Every physicist has his/her (unconscious) philosophy on nature. — Hillary

Philosophy is different from the currently popular but vapid 'having my own philosophy'. It is just a fancy word for 'opinion' in this case.

But it wouldn't be the same discipline... And if they spent all their time thinking about a problematic, I don't see how they would have less practice, it just wouldn't be the same practice, but still about the same topic. This is why my question was "would they be wiser", and not "would they be better in philosophy"... Do you honestly think there is only one way to discuss these topics that are discussed in philosophy? And that the method in academia is the best way? If so, maybe tell me why you think it is so good, and why you think we could not come up with a better way. — Skalidris

Philosophy structures thinking. When they start doing philosophy they will do it philosophically. Philosophy also does not have one methodology, generally it refers to asking questions. Would they be wiser? Why would they? Just because someone starts from a different discipline?

We cannot come up with a better way because minds stronger than ours have. Why do you think one loner has the brainpower to challenge a whole community? Besides, the philosophic method' does not exist. If I see what they generally have in common is that they challenge presuppositions and assumptions and they make some logical or dialectical deductions. If a scientist would start asking philosopical questions he would be doing philosophy as philosophy is mostly defined by the questions asked than by the method employed.

But who do you have to question the most in order to be critical? Yourself... — Skalidris

No, you question others and open yourself up to questions by others, otherwise it is just navel staring.

Yes, I agree, but you don't need philosophy for that. — Skalidris

Nor did I say you did, what I dispute is the proficiency of the independent thinker...

I'm asking your opinion, not your prediction. Why would it be bollocks? — Skalidris

Well, in my opinion they would probably produce less good philosophy. They have at their disposal the philosophical works, but not the training in philosophy. That is not to say that they will invariably produce bollocks. Many of those scientists are very intelligent people and might well produce worthwhile philosophy. As good as well known philosophers? Probably not because they simply lack practice in the field.

Okay, how about philosophy of mind and metaphysics? Better? The way you name it doesn't matter, a lot of philosophers studied the human behaviour (Nietzsche for example). But yes, using these terms, I already made other categories that suggest a broader understanding of the world. I basically mean any topic that can be discussed in philosophy with the philosophical method. And to me, human behaviour can, and it wouldn't be the same as in psychology. — Skalidris

I do not think Nietzsche studied human behaviour but that is beside the point, agreed. Ok, metaphysics. Well what would happen if someone well versed in metaphysics would write her thoughts on a metaphysical subject, let's say the problem of (personal) identity and compare it with someone versed in chemisty but not metaphysics. Well, my bet is that the person versed in metaphysics will write something more interesting than the chemist. She will just give me a lot of chemistry stuff.

Does that mean no one should start doing it? — Skalidris

Of course you can if one needs a hobby. However what comes out of it in terms of things interesting and novel to read is probably little. They will get the science wrong, or the philosophy, or the practical side of things.

But yes you said it, no scientists are skilled to be philosophers if they haven't studied it, that's exactly my point, they would then be independent from it. But does that mean they can't discuss abstract concepts that are also discussed in philosophy? Does that mean they can't be critical? Do you think you can't learn to be critical by yourself? — Skalidris

They can, but they would have a much harder time of it. Indeed I think you cannot learn to be critical by yourself. I think it is much more fruitful to be critical in discussions with others, with whom you can spar and grapple an who will take down your argument. You can learn how to play soccer by yourself but it is much better and easier to learn while playing soccer with others.

No, no, I'm not saying they aren't wise. Maybe I did not understand what you meant in your previous post, but I was just specifying that you can do science without philosophy, except if you take a very vague definition of philosophy, which could basically mean that everyone is a philosopher. — Skalidris

No. The fact that you can do science without philosophy does not imply that everyone is a philosopher. How does that argument run? Maybe we are talking past each other now...

Your question was who would be wiser, the independent thinker or the philosopher. I am not saying that one needs philosophy to do science... You can do it very well without doing philosophy, though it might help if you have learned a thing or two about it, but the other way around is equally true.... What I do contend it that being 'independent' is no advantage, not for doing science neither for philosophy.

I have no idea why he didn't. I have no idea about physics, so what you say here is right over my head. The question whether Einstein did everything by himself is a biographical question. That can be answered in principle by me, but I simply do not know. There are geniuses, maybe he was one, but my hunch is that you will find many contact points with other intellectuals. Or, he is one of those exceedingly rare exceptions which indeed do exist, but their existence is no reason to extrapolate from this a rule saying that 'independent thinkers' (whatever those may be) are wiser (whatever that might mean) than academic philosophers.

Yes you're right. The example was not well chosen. What about Einstein in his clerk office? A romantic idea? — Hillary

He might be such a genius, though I would have to know something about Einstein's biography and I really do not. I do know that at 22 he became a physics teacher. He formed club around him to read and discuss books and at 28 he became a teacher at university. Three years later he became an assistant professor and another 10 years later he received a nobel prize. Of course the man is a genius and he may well for all I know have been very independent. However he was also linked to academia. In how far this influenced him or not I have no idea. Of course geniuses do exist, those people who on their own provide a new perspective. However they are extremely rare and it seems in the current day and age, tied to academia or other prestigious research institutes, rarely at some mundane 9-17:00 job.

You would have a team of engineers focusing on improve horse carriages, and a team of scientist believing we could use another form of energy to go faster. They both have 2 totally different methods, and you could say the scientists are independent of the theories of the engineers (although this example isn't perfect). — Skalidris

No it is not perfect indeed... that is why I do understand. The scientists and engineers are not independent of each other. The ones leaving the horse drawn carriage and focussing on combustion and steam got better results...

Basically, remove all contemporary philosophers and academic philosophy, leave only the archives and the other disciplines. What would come out if we tried to discuss abstract concepts that they normally discuss in philosophy, without any guidance? — Skalidris

Bollocks probably. However we do not know. How can I predict what happens when we study philosophy without philosophers?

Topics discussed in philosophy. A global vision of the human behaviour, global vision of life, space, anything really. They could specify in one topic, but when they all can be related to each other, that's when you know you've come up with something good, just like we use chemistry and physics in biology, for example. — Skalidris

Those are not topics discussed in philosophy. Human behaviour is discussed in sociology and psychology. A global vision of life seems theological, but might be philosophical, as it stands it is imprecise and space is only discussed in philosophy from a certain angle, but objects in space are subjects of physics or mathematics. What you seem to hope for is some sort of homo universalis, but indeed academic specialisation weeded them out. Those topics are just to big to study and link in one lifetime.

They could be a former scientist, psychologist, former historian, anything but philosophy, and basically now working on "philosophical" topics with their own method. — Skalidris

Oftentimes they say they are doing philosophy and just aren't. They perform their own discipline and call it philosophy. But now, are you just thinking science is better than philosophy or something? They are not skilled in the practice of philosophy and so take certain assumptions for granted without critical reflection, because that is what philosophy does and they have not had that training.

Philosophy and science were historically related but their method is so different nowadays that you can do one without the other quite easily, even if they were inspired by each other in the past. In some broad definition where philosophy seems to be anything that has to to with theoretical reasoning, of course it's impossible to take that out of the picture, but I'm really talking about the method from academia nowadays. — Skalidris

Yes, but what are you talking about? You are saying they are not wise and stuff. The last sentence I do not understand.

I got no reply after several emails. Then I tried on wetenschaps forum and got banned. — Hillary

At least you are honest, that is more than most. There are two options. One you are a genius and you have figured out something that other amateurs but also that prof did not see. Or two you are a well meaning amateur but your ideas do not deserve to be taken seriously. The forums are populated to an overwhelming degree by the second kind. I do not exclude the first option, but given the odds it is unlikely. That is why you should write an article about it and see how well received it is by a community of knowledgeable people.

You may well be good at physics, I have no idea. I can also not judge it. That is why I asked for a publication because it is peer reviewed, so it is a marker that others who know about the subject think you should be taken seriously. That is handy in such discussions.

But anyway, it was not about this man, your example does not prove anything in the context of geniuses of community. Why do you think academia is not a stimulating environment? I have never gotten paid to read high class work from actual philsophers and gotten paid for doing so until I landed an academic job.

No. I addressed at him personal and on a physics forum here. — Hillary

What happened afterwards?

He just put together a bunch of old ideas. But in the wrong order. And his idea is already proven wrong. So geniuses are not always geniuses. Maybe never. — Hillary

And I suspect you have published your critique of his work in a physics journal? No geniuses can be wrong, also people with exceptional intellect can be wrong. Being a genius is not dependent on whether your theory survives empirical attempts at falsification. Indeed the research program it spawned may still be worthy of funding with 2000 k euro's.

What genius is? We're all geniuses in principle — Hillary

No we aren't. A genius is someone of superior intellect or creativity. We can't all be superior, so no we are not all geniuses.

It are the circumstances that make it flourish. — Hillary

As well as talent. Some people are just slow.

An academic milieu is not really stimulating. — Hillary

Of course assembly line work is much more stimulating.

An academic milieu is not really stimulating. — Hillary

I doubt you know it, since you have shown to have no idea how academia works.

Two million euros thrown away. — Hillary

Apparently a rigorously selected committee consisting of his peers and probably experts in other fields think it is not. They should have of course listened to a dude named Hilary from PF...

And who pays? You really think he doesn't take a nice part of the pie? I saw his car. Not a cheap one... — Hillary

Full profs earn a nice salary and who cares whether he been awarded some of it for himself? You gave him as an example of an independent thinker (although you seem conflicted on that score) and I pointed out he works within a research community... Or did you give him as an example of a prof that got it wrong? Certainly profs get it wrong, that is also how science works. Promising theories get refuted... that is the way it goes, You can be and a genius and wrong...

Great and that proves what? I looked him up Erik Verlinde is a prof at the University of Amsterdam. The first publication is this one: "Brouwer, M. M., Oman, K. A., Valentijn, E. A., Bilicki, M., Heymans, C., Hoekstra, H., Napolitano, N. R., Roy, N., Tortora, C., Wright, A. H., Asgari, M., van den Busch, J. L., Dvornik, A., Erben, T., Giblin, B., Graham, A. W., Hildebrandt, H., Hopkins, A. M., Kannawadi, A., ... Visser, M. (2021). The weak lensing radial acceleration relation: Constraining modified gravity and cold dark matter theories with KiDS-1000. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 650, [A113]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202040108

It is written by many people, so many not even all the names are listed. The man is a genius of course, but not independent. Just a wonderful professor who probably works in the way I outlined to Skalidris. He was not drinking his cognac in front of his fireplace dreaming up he revolutionary theory but worked on it within a comunity of which he is probably the leading light.

Edit: why do you think he gets the 2000 K? Not to buy a villa in South of France... he gets it to set up a research community, so that his ideas can be expanded upon and refined because they are apparently promising.

He is right though. In modern science, philosophy, or theology, very few original genius thinkers can be found. Most are mediocre, grey conformists, afraid to stick their heads out because of careers or loss of esteem. No easier life than the mediocre life. — Hillary

Why do you think you are capable of making this judgment about others?

Bullocks! That's your envy speaking. Or your blind obedience to the status quo. Like you think, scientific progress is never made. It are exactly the geniuses, the enlightening new insights, sending the standard home, that cause paradigm shifts, however much you might not like that. — Hillary

Not at all. Scientific progress is made in a community, by discussion with other scientists. Of course there are rare geniuses, but if science would depend on them no progress would be made. There are scores of under laborers, fine tuning ideas. Why would I be envious? I am part of such a community, unlike some others here.

Did we also invent cars by improving horse carriages? — Skalidris

No, but did cars come out of nowhere? They built on steam power vehicles, together with the combustion engine. Physics and technology made huge strides in the 19th century. These steps were not due to some genius but due to the combined work of many geniuses. Some we remember of course as geniuses,, but to think they came out of nowhere is just the product of ignorance.

By the way do we know each other? I mean I don't know you but you seem to know me so well, crazy thing... — Skalidris

Yes, I know you quite well. You pop up around the forum a lot. Legion your name is, for you are many.

Most knowledge in philosophy, which I see as a way to have a global vision of the world, whereas other disciplines are more specific, philosophy would try to see the "bigger picture". I don't assume I should explain what a contradiction in logic is, should I? And yes, they're always contradictions in theories, or else knowledge would never evolve, but that doesn't mean we see it immediately. And yes, you can count inconsistent theories as knowledge, but then they have contradictions. — Skalidris

Ok, a global vision, but a global vision of what? International relations scholars might have a global vision, as o earth systems scholars, but in a different way. Do you mean a philosopher should combine all of those, or is there a specific bigger picture she should have? Theories are generally not counted as knowledge. What you describe is generally not considered knowledge, but seems more akin to worldview. That is no problem, I am not here to quibble about words but it is good to be precise in what we are talking about. I would still like to invite you to think about the question posed above, what kind of global vision should a philosopher aspire to?

What if the independent thinker is a scientist as well? Even better, what if their theories have the approval of the scientific community? (in the sense that they approve the scientific part of the theory). However, I agree with you, it wouldn't be science, it wouldn't be philosophy, maybe perhaps another discipline that doesn't exist yet? What's wrong with that? Why would it mean it isn't noteworthy? — Skalidris

But if he is considered a scientist, and a philosopher, how independent can he be? Science and philosophy are contrary to popular belief, rather communal affairs. Kant, a towering figure of Western thought, did not conceive of his thoughts all alone. He was employed at university, he got to read the metaphysics of Wolff and Leibniz, he was challenged especially by the works of Hume. Had it not been for all of those, Kant would never produce his works.

In a bit I am going to discuss a paper in a small group of researchers. I did before and asked the person working on a research grant a thorny question. Two weeks later he came to me knocked on my door and said "hey, good question, I addressed it in the research proposal!" I gave him a thumbs up. Now, when he gets that proposal he might have gotten it, partly due to addressing my question. Otherwise maybe a commission member would have asked it and he would have had no answer and he would not have gotten the grant. Perhaps. Or they would have been asked one of the 1000 other questions posed to him by others that he also addressed in the proposal, due to other seminars and lectures he participated in. Eventually the proposal might be granted giving him the opportunity to write a book. Maybe that will be a pathbreaking study, perhaps, emboldened by all the tiny inputs provided to him by those under laborers. A thousand ifs, but that is how science and philosophy work. Could you skip those steps? Perhaps if you are an exceedingly rare genius, if they exist. Otherwise, a simple 'no' is the answer.

Why should they believe in gods? If the eternal heavenly gods created the temporary material universe in their image, bats do enough to just live and please the bat gods. Like we live to entertain the people gids. — Hillary

Well than the bat gods be sound... (I do advice you to refrain from eating more mushrooms).

That doesn't apply to the night creatures on the planets. Why should gods have no form and be light? The bat-gods would disagree. — Hillary

Bats do not believe in God at least not as far as we know. We believe in God and so picture him in our own terms.

According to Hegel in the Zoroastrian vision God and light were the same. He speaks of 'Lichtwesen', a figure totally unarticulated, only present as light. (As a beginning point, this stage is crucial in Hegel, as everything tends to return there, but in more concrete form, that is another discussion though) I think you do not need any science to see why light is immediately appealing as a candidate for God-like status. In the dark we do not see anything. darkness is dangerous, light is good, it is warming, creating. However, the old German is right, pure light is pure nothingness because it does not bear any contrast within itself.

An independent thinker would be someone who spends a lot of time thinking by themselves, writing, and actively exploring the world (in any way possible) to find more knowledge, not trying to follow any method created by others and not caring about the recognition of their work. (But that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t share it to improve the logic). — Skalidris

How does one do the exploration without relying on stories or explanations from those who came before? Who would be the better shoe maker, those who learn from prior shoemakers and copy their ways of working, gradually improving on their technique, or those who independently set out with a piece of leather and just begin crafting shoes? Well I tell you who will be, the former.

I’ve talked to a few philosophy professors, and they all seemed to read a lot of philosophy but that was mostly it. They didn’t try to get a lot of information from science, or to actively explore the world and meet all kinds of people... — Skalidris

And of course you could judge all that by those few conversations... You, with your overview of their vision, you with your exalted knowledge of science, you could clearly see that those learned men wanted nothing of it and probably did not understand it.

Their method seemed to be to think about famous opinions and then criticize it. In fact, it’s impossible to get credentials in academic philosophy if you don't base your work on other philosophers or philosophical concepts… But what if it has scientific grounds? Doesn’t it get closer to wisdom? — Skalidris

Why does 'having scientific grounds', whatever the convoluted phrase may mean, have to do with wisdom? It seems you arbitrarily define the term in a way that suits you. What you are doing at best is criticizing philosophy professors for not being scientists... but they aren't they are philosophy profs. They keep to their discipline and do not try to piecemeal together what little knowledge they have of science. they are indeed wise, they know their limitations.

Do you think the method of academic philosophy is the best to reach wisdom? — Skalidris

I do not know what reaching wisdom means. You seem to have some hermetic knowledge of that. I believe you say "having the most knowledge with the least contradiction", but most knowledge of what? and how do you compare my knowledge of law with your knowledge of physics? what is knowledge with least contradiction? So some contradiction in my knowledge is ok? But if there is inconsistency, in something I believe in, can I call it knowledge? You are simply being imprecise.

Well from my sarcasm you can already deduce my answer to the question that is the title of the OP. No, the independent thinker just produces bollocky hogwash that he thinks "has scientific grounds", but is probably neither science nor philosophy and probably nothing remotely noteworthy. Unless he happens to be one of those exceedingly rare wandering geniuses, my hunch is the independent thinker just needs an excuse to feel good about himself because he senses the inferiority of his philosophical skills and resents the prof.

Just a thumbs up from me. A great threat and analysis and I would love to jump in, but I am unfortunately too short of time to focus on the really serious threats on this forum :chin: However, I applaud the analyis of our leading light.

Now we come to Richard M. Brickner M.D. description of Germany as paranoid. He defines this paranoia as excessive need to be superior and in control. And I want to mention here that with the change in education came a change in popular philosophers with Hegal and Nitsche replacing the Greek and Rome philosophers. Those philosophies may have remained harmless if it were not for the Prussian control of Germany and its superior bureaucracy and education for technology. What we call the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education began as Prussian management of Germany. — Athena

I do need to point out that the correct names are Hegel and Nietzsche... Those philosophers were never very popular in the US actually. Nietzsche bore a deep mistrust of nationalist Germans. Your vew is overly cultural deterministic. Every nation is prone to fascism. Italy was a fascist country despite its Roman heritage. The US was an inch away from electing a president with fascist sympathies before the war. There is no such thing as evil Europe and benign US. the question whether fascism takes root has to do with trust in institutions, resentment of the population towards foreigners , fear of the the loss of status and longing for times gone by during which everything was supposedly better... Whether one reads Hegel or Mill does not matter as both are not widely read anyways. Fascism creeps in through the mass media, through appeal to emotion rather then reason in times of economic crisis.

Texas really shocked me by making a law that encourages people to report on their family or neighbors, or anyone they think might be suspect of helping in an abortion. These things were the horror of fascist Germany. We seem to be blind to this insidious perversion of our democracy and liberty. — Athena

It is of course always good to remain watchful. Everywhere surveillance is being strengthened and that is a worrying development. So indeed be watchful of intrusions of privacy and of the massing of state power. No state is immune, I think that is a wise lesson. However, I do not share your cultural explanation.

This sounds so contradictory and even has no sense. Perfection needs to be connected to something that at least has existence because you can perceive it so accurately that you end up calling it "perfect" — javi2541997

So you agree that God needs to be perfect? The argument is flawed though because perfection is not connected to anything perceivable. Whether you can ascertain Go's perfection by perception does not matter one iota.